|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On July 14 2013 18:18 Kickboxer wrote:
Stalk people -> harass them until they assault you -> shoot them.
Criminalize weed, legalize murder ^_^ truth is stranger than fiction, that's for sure.
Stalking has an actual definition what Zimmerman did does not fit the legal or common definition of the world stalking
There is no evidence Zimmerman harassed Trayvon the conversation with the police dispatcher doesn't indicate that nor does the phone call between Jenteal and Martin indicate that Zimmerman harassed Trayvon in any way
In any case you don't have the right to assault someone because they are bothering you or even actually harassing you, harassment is a crime, call the police. Being bothered by someone is not justification to punch them
That's some cool hipster sayings you got there at the end
|
On July 14 2013 18:18 Kickboxer wrote:
Stalk people -> harass them until they assault you -> shoot them.
Criminalize weed, legalize murder ^_^ truth is stranger than fiction, that's for sure.
Following as neighborhood watch, then checking an address, is not stalking.
Being aggressively confronted by a person who then assaults you is not harassing.
|
On July 14 2013 18:23 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 18:18 Kickboxer wrote:
Stalk people -> harass them until they assault you -> shoot them.
Criminalize weed, legalize murder ^_^ truth is stranger than fiction, that's for sure. Stalking has an actual definition what Zimmerman did does not fit the legal or common definition of the world stalking There is no evidence Zimmerman harassed Trayvon the conversation with the police dispatcher doesn't indicate that nor does the phone call between Jenteal and Martin indicate that Zimmerman harassed Trayvon in any way In any case you don't have the right to assault someone because they are bothering you or even actually harassing you, harassment is a crime, call the police. Being bothered by someone is not justification to punch them That's some cool hipster sayings you got there at the end
Yea I don't know what hes talking about, if you get harassed to the point where you're going to attack someone its better to call the cops and get them in trouble. Also weed is slowly getting legalized so 420blazeit
|
On July 14 2013 18:02 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes. All justice systems are flaky at times, it's not an American thing.
I never said it was an American thing.
On July 14 2013 18:02 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes. What's legitimate about it? GZ was found not guilty based on evidence, Snowden is charged not guilty, hell, 1938 Germany was a great place if you weren't a jew, so I wouldn't even call that part legitimate.
The point is legitimate because, while we don't objectively know what happened in the dark, the point remains that Zimmerman followed a minor and killed him. However because of a good defense/bad prosecution, things we can't confirm, and the rules of the system, the idea of "Zimmerman acted in self-defense" (I'm not denying this didn't happen, however the fact remains that even if it was self-defense Zimmerman was still the one who started the incident by stalking someone in the dark. If it was a athletic 17 year old female who died, but Zimmerman still had a bleeding nose and cuts on his head because she had paid defense training, objectively the situation would be about the same because she could have turned on him before Zimmerman got physical thus making her the "attacker". However it would undoubtedly would be treated differently.) is something we can't deny thus even if he did murder him it's not something we can do anything about. On the other-hand someone like Snowden is someone that is/was at a reasonable risk of being "silenced" by the government, however he has a lot of immunity because he made himself famous.
From these we can conclude that "what happened" doesn't necessarily matter in a lot of situations, but how the rules of the system(s) are approached/prodded/used after the fact. I call this flaky. I'm not making a statement about the case; I'm just saying that edlover420's point about flakiness has merit.
|
On July 14 2013 18:20 rasnj wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 18:13 Mannerheim wrote:On July 14 2013 18:08 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Manslaughter was a charge leveled against Zimmerman.
I know, but when the charge is murder and manslaughter I think a jury is more likely to go for not guilty over guilty of only manslaughter. In my opinion a tactical error from prosecution, as the murder was hard to prove in the first place. Why do you believe that a jury would act in that way? I am not a lawyer and don't know what makes juries do what juries do, but the prosecution are lawyers and presumably had a reason for doing what they did. Further I have also seen someone in this thread (pre-verdict) suggest that this was a tactical move to trick the jury into going for the "middle ground option" which was manslaughter if they believe someone should be punished since a person was killed after all. This explanation sounds just as valid as your hypothesis. I'm not suggesting it was or was not a good decision to include a murder charge, but I don't think the majority of people in this thread are qualified to judge whether that decision was sound.
Maybe, but to me the "middle ground option" reeks of desperation, i.e. fishing for any conviction in a pool of charges, which probably means they don't have a strong case in any of them.
|
On July 14 2013 15:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So Riot happening in, where else, Oakland.
I suppose I should have posted the Oakland PD scanner sooner, its a real bore currently. Oakland Scanner
Pictures!
+ Show Spoiler +
|
I wasn't talking about the case. Did I mention the case anywhere in there? What I wrote is simple fact, you can get away with murder now in the USA if you follow a simple plan and cite stand your ground. All you need to do is provoke a person into assaulting you and you have the legal right to shoot them dead. But hey, as long as there is no justification to punch people as opposed to shooting them it's all good.
|
On July 14 2013 18:29 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 18:02 nihlon wrote:On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes. All justice systems are flaky at times, it's not an American thing. I never said it was an American thing. Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 18:02 Feartheguru wrote:On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes. What's legitimate about it? GZ was found not guilty based on evidence, Snowden is charged not guilty, hell, 1938 Germany was a great place if you weren't a jew, so I wouldn't even call that part legitimate. The point is legitimate because, while we don't objectively know what happened in the dark, the point remains that Zimmerman followed a minor and killed him. However because of a good defense/bad prosecution, things we can't confirm, and the rules of the system, the idea of "Zimmerman acted in self-defense" (I'm not denying this didn't happen, however the fact remains that even if it was self-defense Zimmerman was still the one who started the incident by stalking someone in the dark. If it was a athletic 17 year old female who died, but Zimmerman still had a bleeding nose and cuts on his head because she had paid defense training, objectively the situation would be about the same because she could have turned on him before Zimmerman got physical thus making her the "attacker". However it would undoubtedly would be treated differently.) is something we can't deny thus even if he did murder him it's not something we can do anything about. On the other-hand someone like Snowden is someone that is/was at a reasonable risk of being "silenced" by the government, however he has a lot of immunity because he made himself famous. From these we can conclude that "what happened" doesn't necessarily matter in a lot of situations, but how the rules of the system(s) are approached/prodded/used after the fact. I call this flaky. I'm not making a statement about the case; I'm just saying that edlover420's point about flakiness has merit.
Edit: Still that whole paragraph is the same thing that has been going on for the last 100pages. We all are not happy with the death of the kid but there is no evidence of murder. Or you don't believe in self-defense... and then I don't know make a case against that ?
Edit 2: Never mind I'm the one being tired.
|
On July 14 2013 18:30 Irave wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 15:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So Riot happening in, where else, Oakland. I suppose I should have posted the Oakland PD scanner sooner, its a real bore currently. Oakland ScannerPictures! + Show Spoiler +
Nah, this is just Saturday night in Oakland. This doesn't even rise to "the Raiders won".
|
On July 14 2013 18:29 Mannerheim wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 18:20 rasnj wrote:On July 14 2013 18:13 Mannerheim wrote:On July 14 2013 18:08 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Manslaughter was a charge leveled against Zimmerman.
I know, but when the charge is murder and manslaughter I think a jury is more likely to go for not guilty over guilty of only manslaughter. In my opinion a tactical error from prosecution, as the murder was hard to prove in the first place. Why do you believe that a jury would act in that way? I am not a lawyer and don't know what makes juries do what juries do, but the prosecution are lawyers and presumably had a reason for doing what they did. Further I have also seen someone in this thread (pre-verdict) suggest that this was a tactical move to trick the jury into going for the "middle ground option" which was manslaughter if they believe someone should be punished since a person was killed after all. This explanation sounds just as valid as your hypothesis. I'm not suggesting it was or was not a good decision to include a murder charge, but I don't think the majority of people in this thread are qualified to judge whether that decision was sound. Maybe, but to me the "middle ground option" reeks of desperation, i.e. fishing for any conviction in a pool of charges, which probably means they don't have a strong case in any of them.
Is that so unlikely though? They didn't have a strong case on any count. The prosecution surely must have been desparate given their lack of evidence, so going for the long-shot is probably better than going for a straight forward convservative prosecution which might have predictably failed because the evidence just doesn't support it.
|
On July 14 2013 18:02 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes. Hell, 1938 Germany was a great place if you weren't a jew, so I wouldn't even call that part legitimate.
This is also entirely false and insensitive to the Germans who fought for justice during one of the worst periods of time in modern history.
Nazi Germany was beheading pure blooded German students without proper trial ("offenders" like this were often tried in the Volksgericht which was basically a rigged court established after Nazi rule) for simply speaking out.
On July 14 2013 18:32 rezoacken wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 18:29 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 14 2013 18:02 nihlon wrote:On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes. All justice systems are flaky at times, it's not an American thing. I never said it was an American thing. On July 14 2013 18:02 Feartheguru wrote:On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes. What's legitimate about it? GZ was found not guilty based on evidence, Snowden is charged not guilty, hell, 1938 Germany was a great place if you weren't a jew, so I wouldn't even call that part legitimate. The point is legitimate because, while we don't objectively know what happened in the dark, the point remains that Zimmerman followed a minor and killed him. However because of a good defense/bad prosecution, things we can't confirm, and the rules of the system, the idea of "Zimmerman acted in self-defense" (I'm not denying this didn't happen, however the fact remains that even if it was self-defense Zimmerman was still the one who started the incident by stalking someone in the dark. If it was a athletic 17 year old female who died, but Zimmerman still had a bleeding nose and cuts on his head because she had paid defense training, objectively the situation would be about the same because she could have turned on him before Zimmerman got physical thus making her the "attacker". However it would undoubtedly would be treated differently.) is something we can't deny thus even if he did murder him it's not something we can do anything about. On the other-hand someone like Snowden is someone that is/was at a reasonable risk of being "silenced" by the government, however he has a lot of immunity because he made himself famous. From these we can conclude that "what happened" doesn't necessarily matter in a lot of situations, but how the rules of the system(s) are approached/prodded/used after the fact. I call this flaky. I'm not making a statement about the case; I'm just saying that edlover420's point about flakiness has merit. She... her... Do you even know what's this is about ?
Please read more carefully before you comment. It's abundantly clear that it's a hypothetical example.
|
On July 14 2013 18:36 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 18:02 Feartheguru wrote:On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes. Hell, 1938 Germany was a great place if you weren't a jew, so I wouldn't even call that part legitimate. This is also entirely false and insensitive to the Germans who fought for justice during one of the worst periods of time in modern history. Nazi Germany was beheading pure blooded German students without proper trial ("offenders" like this were often tried in the Volksgericht which was basically a rigged court established after Nazi rule) for speaking out. Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 18:32 rezoacken wrote:On July 14 2013 18:29 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 14 2013 18:02 nihlon wrote:On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes. All justice systems are flaky at times, it's not an American thing. I never said it was an American thing. On July 14 2013 18:02 Feartheguru wrote:On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes. What's legitimate about it? GZ was found not guilty based on evidence, Snowden is charged not guilty, hell, 1938 Germany was a great place if you weren't a jew, so I wouldn't even call that part legitimate. The point is legitimate because, while we don't objectively know what happened in the dark, the point remains that Zimmerman followed a minor and killed him. However because of a good defense/bad prosecution, things we can't confirm, and the rules of the system, the idea of "Zimmerman acted in self-defense" (I'm not denying this didn't happen, however the fact remains that even if it was self-defense Zimmerman was still the one who started the incident by stalking someone in the dark. If it was a athletic 17 year old female who died, but Zimmerman still had a bleeding nose and cuts on his head because she had paid defense training, objectively the situation would be about the same because she could have turned on him before Zimmerman got physical thus making her the "attacker". However it would undoubtedly would be treated differently.) is something we can't deny thus even if he did murder him it's not something we can do anything about. On the other-hand someone like Snowden is someone that is/was at a reasonable risk of being "silenced" by the government, however he has a lot of immunity because he made himself famous. From these we can conclude that "what happened" doesn't necessarily matter in a lot of situations, but how the rules of the system(s) are approached/prodded/used after the fact. I call this flaky. I'm not making a statement about the case; I'm just saying that edlover420's point about flakiness has merit. She... her... Do you even know what's this is about ? Please read more carefully before you comment. It's abundantly clear that it's a hypothetical example.
Sorry reread and edited.
As for the example I'm not sure what your point is. If it was the exact same thing as for the testimonies, aftermath and evidences displayed I would like the same verdict. What's your point ? If it isn't treated equally, then its not fair. However the prosecution would have a better point saying a 17yo girl is probably less of a threat maybe...
Still what is your point with your example, it's not the current case.
|
So as I don't know too much about the US legal system, will this now most likely go to the next round at a higher court?
|
On July 14 2013 18:31 Kickboxer wrote:
I wasn't talking about the case. Did I mention the case anywhere in there? What I wrote is simple fact, you can get away with murder now in the USA if you follow a simple plan and cite stand your ground. All you need to do is provoke a person into assaulting you and you have the legal right to shoot them dead. But hey, as long as there is no justification to punch people as opposed to shooting them it's all good.
Stand your ground was not used in this case and therefore off topic. What you suggest is the planned killing of another human being, and even if you let them assault you first that would probably still qualify as first degree murder. Further if you are in a position where you can back of or do not reasonably fear for your life, then self-defense doesn't really work out.
Of course if there is no evidence that you planned or commited murder, then you won't get convicted, but that does not make it legal and that line of reasoning generalizes to "If you commit a crime without leaving evidence of having commited that crime, then you will get away with it." Not hugely controversial really, you will only get judged based on the evidence available. Surely you didn't need this case to reach that conclusion.
|
On July 14 2013 18:39 Mafe wrote:
So as I don't know too much about the US legal system, will this now most likely go to the next round at a higher court?
I'd say that's unlikely since the state knows their case is weak in the first place and only prosecuted due to media forcing them. It might go to civil case if the family of Trayvon wants to sue Zimmerman.
I was a bit worried when the jury wanted manslaughter clarification rules.. Glad they came to the right conclusion lol.
|
On July 14 2013 18:40 rasnj wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 18:31 Kickboxer wrote:
I wasn't talking about the case. Did I mention the case anywhere in there? What I wrote is simple fact, you can get away with murder now in the USA if you follow a simple plan and cite stand your ground. All you need to do is provoke a person into assaulting you and you have the legal right to shoot them dead. But hey, as long as there is no justification to punch people as opposed to shooting them it's all good. Stand your ground was not used in this case and therefore off topic. What you suggest is the planned killing of another human being, and even if you let them assault you first that would probably still qualify as first degree murder. Further if you are in a position where you can back of or do not reasonably fear for your life, then self-defense doesn't really work out. Of course if there is no evidence that you planned or commited murder, then you won't get convicted, but that does not make it legal and that line of reasoning generalizes to "If you commit a crime without leaving evidence of having commited that crime, then you will get away with it." Not hugely controversial really, you will only get judged based on the evidence available. Surely you didn't need this case to reach that conclusion.
You know your post got me thinking.
If you knew someone was going to attack you pretty badly but you wanted to murder them. Could you hypothetically put yourself into a situation like Zimmerman's and kill them in "self-defense" even though the motive for murder was there. If so could you be charged with 1st degree murder if anyone found out?
|
On July 14 2013 18:29 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 18:02 nihlon wrote:On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes. All justice systems are flaky at times, it's not an American thing. I never said it was an American thing. Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 18:02 Feartheguru wrote:On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes. What's legitimate about it? GZ was found not guilty based on evidence, Snowden is charged not guilty, hell, 1938 Germany was a great place if you weren't a jew, so I wouldn't even call that part legitimate. The point is legitimate because, while we don't objectively know what happened in the dark, the point remains that Zimmerman followed a minor and killed him. However because of a good defense/bad prosecution, things we can't confirm, and the rules of the system, the idea of "Zimmerman acted in self-defense" (I'm not denying this didn't happen, however the fact remains that even if it was self-defense Zimmerman was still the one who started the incident by stalking someone in the dark. If it was a athletic 17 year old female who died, but Zimmerman still had a bleeding nose and cuts on his head because she had paid defense training, objectively the situation would be about the same because she could have turned on him before Zimmerman got physical thus making her the "attacker". However it would undoubtedly would be treated differently.) is something we can't deny thus even if he did murder him it's not something we can do anything about. On the other-hand someone like Snowden is someone that is/was at a reasonable risk of being "silenced" by the government, however he has a lot of immunity because he made himself famous. From these we can conclude that "what happened" doesn't necessarily matter in a lot of situations, but how the rules of the system(s) are approached/prodded/used after the fact. I call this flaky. I'm not making a statement about the case; I'm just saying that edlover420's point about flakiness has merit.
Based on your very unfairly limited description of the events I don't think your opinion on the flakiness or lack thereof of the American justice system has merit.
Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 18:31 Kickboxer wrote:
I wasn't talking about the case. Did I mention the case anywhere in there? What I wrote is simple fact, you can get away with murder now in the USA if you follow a simple plan and cite stand your ground. All you need to do is provoke a person into assaulting you and you have the legal right to shoot them dead. But hey, as long as there is no justification to punch people as opposed to shooting them it's all good.
Self-defense is not uncommonly argued and it does not work a lot of the time.
Many murders are carefully planned and are still found out, I don't see why carefully planning to make a murder look like self-defense would be more difficult for police to investigate successfully. Some people do try to make their murders look like self-defense, police are pretty good at figuring that kind of thing out.
It's absurd anyway to suggest that in the space of 3-4 minutes Zimmerman decided to kill Martin and claim self-defense.
After the police came Zimmerman told a woman cop it didn't matter if he killed Martin in self-defense or not, according to his (Zimmerman's) religion (Catholicism) it was just as bad to kill him no matter the reason. Police testified that they believed Zimmerman was truthful (or a "pathological" aka nearly perfect liar).
Zimmerman doesn't seem to be a pathological liar or some kind of criminal genius to me. Doesn't seem possible that he formed the idea and the plan for the perfect crime in the space of a few minutes and then pulled it off perfectly.
The problem is that people come in and just falsely characterize what happened or say things that are denigrating Zimmerman that just aren't true and if they had followed the trial past a casual level at all they wouldn't say things so obviously wrong.
|
On July 14 2013 18:47 Krohm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 18:40 rasnj wrote:On July 14 2013 18:31 Kickboxer wrote:
I wasn't talking about the case. Did I mention the case anywhere in there? What I wrote is simple fact, you can get away with murder now in the USA if you follow a simple plan and cite stand your ground. All you need to do is provoke a person into assaulting you and you have the legal right to shoot them dead. But hey, as long as there is no justification to punch people as opposed to shooting them it's all good. Stand your ground was not used in this case and therefore off topic. What you suggest is the planned killing of another human being, and even if you let them assault you first that would probably still qualify as first degree murder. Further if you are in a position where you can back of or do not reasonably fear for your life, then self-defense doesn't really work out. Of course if there is no evidence that you planned or commited murder, then you won't get convicted, but that does not make it legal and that line of reasoning generalizes to "If you commit a crime without leaving evidence of having commited that crime, then you will get away with it." Not hugely controversial really, you will only get judged based on the evidence available. Surely you didn't need this case to reach that conclusion. You know your post got me thinking. If you knew someone was going to attack you pretty badly but you wanted to murder them. Could you hypothetically put yourself into a situation like Zimmerman's and kill them in "self-defense" even though the motive for murder was there. If so could you be charged with 1st degree murder if anyone found out?
Yes, if it can be proven you had ill intent. Like for example take the exact same scenario as Zimmerman but add the fact that he knows TM and hates him according to his neighbor or something.
That would weight heavily against you and probably send him to jail.
Either way its always the same thing, the prosecution tries to prove something and the defense tries to prove something of a lesser degree. The hard part is proving either side.
|
On July 14 2013 18:36 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 18:02 Feartheguru wrote:On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes. Hell, 1938 Germany was a great place if you weren't a jew, so I wouldn't even call that part legitimate. This is also entirely false and insensitive to the Germans who fought for justice during one of the worst periods of time in modern history. Nazi Germany was beheading pure blooded German students without proper trial ("offenders" like this were often tried in the Volksgericht which was basically a rigged court established after Nazi rule) for simply speaking out. Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 18:32 rezoacken wrote:On July 14 2013 18:29 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 14 2013 18:02 nihlon wrote:On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes. All justice systems are flaky at times, it's not an American thing. I never said it was an American thing. On July 14 2013 18:02 Feartheguru wrote:On July 14 2013 17:57 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Either way his point is legitimate. The justice system can be flaky sometimes. What's legitimate about it? GZ was found not guilty based on evidence, Snowden is charged not guilty, hell, 1938 Germany was a great place if you weren't a jew, so I wouldn't even call that part legitimate. The point is legitimate because, while we don't objectively know what happened in the dark, the point remains that Zimmerman followed a minor and killed him. However because of a good defense/bad prosecution, things we can't confirm, and the rules of the system, the idea of "Zimmerman acted in self-defense" (I'm not denying this didn't happen, however the fact remains that even if it was self-defense Zimmerman was still the one who started the incident by stalking someone in the dark. If it was a athletic 17 year old female who died, but Zimmerman still had a bleeding nose and cuts on his head because she had paid defense training, objectively the situation would be about the same because she could have turned on him before Zimmerman got physical thus making her the "attacker". However it would undoubtedly would be treated differently.) is something we can't deny thus even if he did murder him it's not something we can do anything about. On the other-hand someone like Snowden is someone that is/was at a reasonable risk of being "silenced" by the government, however he has a lot of immunity because he made himself famous. From these we can conclude that "what happened" doesn't necessarily matter in a lot of situations, but how the rules of the system(s) are approached/prodded/used after the fact. I call this flaky. I'm not making a statement about the case; I'm just saying that edlover420's point about flakiness has merit. She... her... Do you even know what's this is about ? Please read more carefully before you comment. It's abundantly clear that it's a hypothetical example.
What does any of that have to do with this case? Stay on topic please.
|
On July 14 2013 18:47 Krohm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 18:40 rasnj wrote:On July 14 2013 18:31 Kickboxer wrote:
I wasn't talking about the case. Did I mention the case anywhere in there? What I wrote is simple fact, you can get away with murder now in the USA if you follow a simple plan and cite stand your ground. All you need to do is provoke a person into assaulting you and you have the legal right to shoot them dead. But hey, as long as there is no justification to punch people as opposed to shooting them it's all good. Stand your ground was not used in this case and therefore off topic. What you suggest is the planned killing of another human being, and even if you let them assault you first that would probably still qualify as first degree murder. Further if you are in a position where you can back of or do not reasonably fear for your life, then self-defense doesn't really work out. Of course if there is no evidence that you planned or commited murder, then you won't get convicted, but that does not make it legal and that line of reasoning generalizes to "If you commit a crime without leaving evidence of having commited that crime, then you will get away with it." Not hugely controversial really, you will only get judged based on the evidence available. Surely you didn't need this case to reach that conclusion. You know your post got me thinking. If you knew someone was going to attack you pretty badly but you wanted to murder them. Could you hypothetically put yourself into a situation like Zimmerman's and kill them in "self-defense" even though the motive for murder was there. If so could you be charged with 1st degree murder if anyone found out?
I wouldn't know how to put myself in such a situation. You need to somehow create a situation where you can reasonably argue that you fear for your life, but you also need to make sure that you don't actually die or sustain permanent injuries.What if Zimmerman had lost consciousness after the first blow? What if he had fallen on the concrete hard enough to sustain brain damage? When you are getting beaten can you really remain calm enough to decide when it is time to pull out your gun, and be certain that you will be able to do this? And if you act in a manner that is very unusual for an assault victim (maybe not trying to get up, maybe not covering your face) you risk leaving forensic evidence. Even then if you manage to barely survive, but killing your assailant you will still need to go through a trial like Zimmerman's and if the situation of your self-defense is suspicious (e.g. if you were known to have ill will towards the other person) you run the risk of actually getting convicted on manslaughter charges.
It seems like a highly risky and dangerous thing to do.
If you are highly experienced in law enforcement you may be able to pull something like that of, but I believe it would probably be easier and safer to "just" pull of a murder with no witnesses and no forensic evidence pointing at you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5XYo48Y.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uHL7H2Z.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Ho2GVrl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qz6NDAI.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bdKQixr.jpg)
